If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.
In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.
The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

They can predict 50 to 100's of years out... every .. other .. year (meaning its subject to change just as often).

But they cant predict the weather next week, let alone tomorrow.

And they say that belief in the God of the bible takes faith?? Seems to me, that man made global bologna takes heaps more 'faith'.

Yes, but their faith has a scientific veneer over it (not actual science, which demands skepticism, just the trappings), just as other progressive ideas had faux scientific consensus. A few other progressive ideas that have since been debunked include:

Eugenics. Progressives genuinely believed that the threat of stupid people breeding could be solved scientifically, through culling and forced sterilization. This made great inroads into progressive policies, even in the US, where forced sterilizations in mental institutions were carried out on a huge scale. Of course, since progressives are driven by the same demons as the rest of us, their definitions of stupid inevitably came to include political opponents, supposedly inferior racial groups and pretty much anyone that had ever snubbed them at a cocktail party. This culminated in the Holocaust. Since then, progressives have worked very hard to hide this utterly discredited idea and its influence on modern policies of state-sponsored birth control and abortion on demand.

Socialism. Apparently, mass starvation and failure in every centrally planned economic system since the dawn of mankind hadn't dampened the progressives' enthusiasm for trying it again, only this time, they were going to do it scientifically, according to the ideas of an embittered journalist with no scientific training, who managed to produce a study of capital without ever actually aqcuiring any. The only thing scientific about it was the counting of the dead after the governments that adopted this collapsed. Those few states still desperately clinging to this are economic basket cases, failing miserably, and waiting desperately for the day when their despots die and they can finally get their hands on a McDonalds franchise.

Social Engineering. Every progressive fantasy state has believed that it was creating a new kind of human being. The New Soviet Man was one of the best known examples, but the National Socialists had their pure Aryans, the French Revolutionaries had whatever they called their new model, and the various other progressive states had their own versions. The social engineering that it took to create these new men was intense, and the results were highly unsatisfactory. The idea came from Rousseau, who believed that man was naturally good, and that his removal from his natural environment made him corrupt. Of course, Rousseau was one of the most corrupt men ever to exist, but his abuse of the people around him was always excused by his stellar ideals (one must remember that Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao were idealists, just ask their victims). The idea was that by breaking with the past, we could rebuild the future. The Jacobins threw out the calendar, converted churches into temples of reason, imposed mass terror and ultimately created a new man whose primary characteristic was his ability to march in a column into Wellington's guns. The New Soviet Man demonstrated his improved survival skills by cringing on cue in a cynically corrupt state. Mao threw illiterate peasants into positions of responsibility, with predictably disastrous results. Pol Pot just killed everyone that he didn't think would be able to adapt to his new world order, which brings us back to eugenics and culling. Today's progressives are eliminating gender differences and redefining marriage in order to create perfectly androgynous little automatons. It all comes back to their take on Darwin.

Social Darwinism. The progressives believed in progress, that is, the perpetual advance of mankind to a perfect state (with them as the vanguard of this evolution, of course). They had absorbed the parts of Darwin's concept of evolution that flattered them, but neglected to think about extinction, except as it applied to those who lacked their unique virtues. Thus, they threw out all manner of evolved wisdom and learning and decided that they knew better than their ancestors (who had survived much harder lives than they had) about what works and what doesn't. They assumed that because their lives were marked by extraordinary progress (industrialization, political liberty, etc.,) that the future would be the same, only more so. They ignored evidence to the contrary, such as the collapse of great states and empires, with ensueing periods of darkness. They should have checked that out with Romulus Augustulus, but of course, progressives don't study history, as it's just a bunch of dead white males and their victims.